Shortcuts
I realize now that shortcuts don't work when you're trying to lead along a certain path, especially one that is as narrow as the path to life. I'm referring to my quick explanation for the clear distinctions between men and women; that being God created two sexes, not one, and the works of His hands reflect His design. I know, really quick and simple. Some have said it really isn't that simple, and I agree for different reasons. This is certainly true if you've at all been entrenched into today's world of ambiguity that makes no room for clear distinctions. And let's be honest, we all are. Nevertheless, God has created us male and female, not ale. So what are these distinctions? As always, let's look to the Bible for our wisdom. Here are a few passages that make it completely clear that God has made man distinctly as male and female.
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." - Genesis 1:27
---Nothing new here...---
"To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” - Genesis 3:16-19
---In what activities did God curse Adam and Eve? Does this reflect anything about them? If you say no, then why didn't they receive the same curse? If you say because they didn't do the same wrong (one was the initiator and one was an accomplice), then you've got to look at their confessions, both of which, after making excuses, end with "I ate". Or you could say they were cursed differently because of the order in which they ate, but then you admit they had and violated their particular roles. Otherwise, you're back to admitting they did the same wrong (eating the fruit), but received different punishment. But why?---
"I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." - 1 Timothy 2:8-15
---The Bible is a sword right into our hearts. Men get angry and women dress immodestly. Sometimes it even gives us reason for the commands we are to obey. Many beg that we add some cultural context to this paragraph to disqualify Paul's egotistical demands, but the Holy Spirit's reasoning is clear: For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Check the Greek if you don't believe me. Male headship was established in the very creation of man. For those of you who struggle with history, that was before the Fall. Hate God and His Word, but do not mangle the Scriptures.
"Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled." - Titus 2:-3-6
---Just for further support of men and women being instructed differently.---
In one of the comments, Andrew argued that with my views "Women of all races and all backgrounds should be quiet, subservient, respectful and meek (if you take this too far, you could also find yourself making a defense for eugenics). This is the kind of world you argue for, Lane, without respect to scripture holistically." If I'm not mistaken, that's how Paul says the women should live. 1 Peter 3:4 also says women should have "a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious."
This is how I see it, friends. Andrew, along with a few others I'm sure, hates that I make distinctions between men and women. I said nothing malicious about women in my posts, but I made a distinction between them and myself. Ahhh... I must be boastful, right? I mean, we've learned from Brown vs. the Board of Education that we can never have equality and distinction. (There. Now you can pull that out of context and say I'm a racist as well as a sexist. Get it together. That's our history and provides a foundation for how we think about distinction.) So yes, by making distinctions I must be equating myself to be of higher value and intelligence. Sigh...
Look, I am a male. I go to men's times. The pastors talk to us differently in those times than they do to the congregation as a whole. They call us to our God-given responsibilities, which precisely includes humbly leading our wives, if applicable. Tim Bayly is one of those pastors and I am so blessed to sit under his teaching. If you think he's somehow against women, you could be no further from the truth. By God's wise design, children are born of women, and women alone. And just a few times Tim has recorded why children are a blessing.
I appreciate your kind, genuine, and measured response. I think about our lunch trips (the Café, etc.) and how I, unlike you, generally tended to speak out of an emotionalized feeling of immediacy – your reaction on this blog is similar to how I have known you to react in discussions (over the last two years). - considerate and thoughtful My intention in initially responding to your thoughts is to fill (balance) the large void you leave when addressing theological or social issues like sexuality: roles of men and women.
My experience with the type of thinking illustrated in your blog is largely negative, which is why I have such a strong reaction. It’s very understandable that many people want very little (if anything at all) to do with Christianity – Christians have continually forced false dogma (additionally stripping words or passages of their true meanings in order to stress certain humanly-created rules and ideas) upon society until scripture has no real relevance to contemporary thought at all. Do you have female friends who read this blog? I encourage you to ask them what they think of your words and beliefs – but maybe it doesn't matter to you. You use scripture to justify and uplift your existence as a male and, I believe, to the point of confusing what Christ came to do. His 'Message' had nothing to do with this…
As I have said before, it is very obvious that, theologically, you operate within a framework of fear (your friend (I assume), Jacob certainly does, as evidenced by his view of me – and society at large - as ‘wolf’-ish). Somehow, you and he would argue, the consideration and acceptance that a woman could be physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, etc. dominant over a man, is the ultimate downfall of the world. Is this the peculiar fight worth fighting? But this is not the point – why human dominance at all?
Jacob’s personal and uneducated attack (response) on my arguments illustrated something deeper: something desperate and panicked (after ‘Googling’ his name, these same tirades can be found posted on blogs throughout the internet). His thoughts probably call for a few exclamatory questions such as: “What the ?” - but I won’t be so boring. There is a lot of alarmist thinking in this blog in general. What about trusting in God to create (personalities) freely? What about trusting in God?
All this being said, Jacob, like you, seems like a passionate and thoughtful person; and he really ‘let me have it,’ as I deserved (by my, perhaps over-emotionalized responses). Look, men and women have obvious differences (strengths, weaknesses) – distinctions, yes - but let’s not forget that God created men and women in His image…I think the totality of the wording has some implications that would be worth considering.
Finally, I did a quick search on John Piper’s teachings on this particular passage (while I generally do not share his views, I do know that you hold him in high esteem) and found this: “If God created us in His image AS MALE AND FEMALE, that implies equality of personhood, equality of dignity, mutual respect, harmony, complementary, a unified destiny”
(http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper89/5-14-89.htm).
Now, maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’m putting words in your mouth or assuming too much of your views – but in your writing, it does not seem that you view male/female roles in this same way. You seem very intent on describing how women should act, the roles they “fit into,” what God created them for/created them to do, etc. – and most of this involves women serving men or, at least, women holding secondary roles to men.
Well, I know that I’m a little late in responding, but I hope that you understand where I’m coming from – without writing me off simply as a heretic or a “wolf.” You have a very legitimate viewpoint, Lane, and I apologize (1) for being long-winded and (2) for not treating you with the dignity that you deserve. Thanks for providing a forum for this. (Comment this)